A high rate of polypharmacy is, in part, a consequence of the increasing proportion of multimorbidity in the ageing population worldwide. Our understanding of the potential harm of taking multiple medications in an older, multi-morbid population, who are likely to be on a polypharmacy regime, is limited. This is a narrative literature review that aims to appraise and summarise recent studies published about polypharmacy. We searched MEDLINE using the search terms polypharmacy (and its variations, e.g. multiple prescriptions, inappropriate drug use, etc.) in titles. Systematic reviews and original studies in English published between 2003 and 2018 were included. In this review, we provide current definitions of polypharmacy. We identify the determinants and prevalence of polypharmacy reported in different studies. Finally, we summarise some of the findings regarding the association between polypharmacy and health outcomes in older adults, with a focus on frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Polypharmacy was most often defined in terms of the number of medications that are being taken by an individual at any given time. Our review showed that the prevalence of polypharmacy varied between 10% to as high as around 90% in different populations. Chronic conditions, demographics, socioeconomics and self-assessed health factors were independent predictors of polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was reported to be associated with various adverse outcomes after adjusting for health conditions. Optimising care for polypharmacy with valid, reliable measures, relevant to all patients, will improve the health outcomes of older adult population.

Abstract:Background: Frailty, a very important complication of increasing age, is a well-recognised concept although it has not been accurately measured in the clinical setting. The aim of this literature review is to summarise commonly used frailty screening tools, and to describe how new measurement methods have been developed recently. Methods: Several frailty measurement tools including the most cited and newly developed scales have been described in this review. We searched the MEDLINE using the search terms; "frailty score, scale, tool, instrument, index, phenotype" and then summarised selected tools for physical, cognitive, emotional and co-morbidity domains. Results: The most cited frailty measurement methods developed from 1999 to 2005 are primarily criteria for physical frailty (e.g., frailty phenotype). More recently developed tools (e.g., triad of impairment and multidimensional frailty score) consider cognitive and emotional domains in addition to physical deficit in measuring frailty. Co-morbidity has also been considered as a domain of frailty in several measurement tools. Conclusion: Although frailty tools have traditionally assessed physical capability, cognitive and emotional impairment often co-exist in older adults and may have shared origins. Therefore, newer tools which provide a composite measure of frailty may be more relevant for future use.

Background Polypharmacy is a growing health concern for older adults and is associated with poorer clinical outcome. Objective This study aim is to investigate the association between polypharmacy and impairment in cognitive, physical and emotional capability controlling for the confounding effect of co-morbidities. Setting The Aberdeen 1936 Birth Cohort from 1999 to 2004. Method Recruited were 498 dementia free participants around 64 years old and recruited into wave one. Linear regression and structural equation models were used. Models were adjusted for the effect of age, gender, childhood IQ, education and Body Mass Index. A triad of impairment was defined as a composite measure of impairment in cognitive, physical and emotional function. Main outcome measure The relationships between polypharmacy, co-morbidity and triad of impairment. Results The prevalence of polypharmacy was 12.3% in this relatively healthy sample. Polypharmacy was significantly associated with increased impairment in cognitive, physical and emotional ability (β = 3.6, p = 0.003) after controlling for the effect of comorbidities and other confounding variables. As expected, higher childhood IQ and educational achievement had protective effects against impairment while higher comorbidity score and Body Mass Index were associated with increased impairment in this population. Conclusions The independent association of polypharmacy and reduced cognitive, physical and emotional capability makes this a promising target for predicting and potentially reducing the risk of impairment and associated healthcare costs in older adults. Longitudinal studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms for the observed relationships further. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11096-018-0761-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims: Individuals taking immunosuppressants are at increased susceptibility to viral infections in general. However, due to the novel nature of the COVID-19, there is a lack of evidence about the specific risks of the disease in this patient group. This systematic review aims to summarize the current international clinical guidelines to highlight areas where research is needed through critical appraisal of the evidence base of these guidelines. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines about the usage of immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and the websites of relevant professional bodies were searched for English language guidelines that were published or updated between March 2020 and May 2020 in this area. We assessed the quality and consistency of guidelines. The evidence base underpinning these guidelines was critically appraised using GRADE criteria. Results: Twenty-three guidelines were included. Most guidelines ( n = 15, 65.2%) informed and updated evidence based on expert opinion. The methodological quality of the guidelines varied, ranging from ‘very low’ to ‘moderate’. Guidelines consistently recommended that high-risk patients, including those who are taking high doses of steroids for more than a month, or a combination of two or more immunosuppressants, should be shielding during the outbreak. Most guidelines stated that steroids usage should not be stopped abruptly and advised on individualized risk–benefit analysis considering the risk of the effect of COVID-19 infection and the relapse of the autoimmune condition in patients. Discussion: Clinical practice guidelines on taking immunosuppressants during the COVID-19 outbreak vary in quality. The level of evidence informing the available guidelines was generally low. Given the novel nature of COVID-19, the guidelines draw on existing knowledge and data, refer to the use of immunosuppressants and risks of serious infections of other aetiologies and have extrapolated these to form their evidence base.

No abstract